Case Summary (G.R. No. 171916)
Relevant Case Background
The petitioner filed a Complaint for Specific Performance, which prompted attempts to serve summons to the respondent at her residence on Manikling Street, Talayan Village, Quezon City. The initial attempts to serve the summons were unsuccessful, as the respondent was absent, and her maid refused to accept the documents. After several attempts, the process server reported failures in serving the summons and later resorted to substituted service.
Service of Summons Attempts
The process server conducted three attempts at serving the summons, ultimately returning with a report that indicated only a failure to serve personally. The reports did not adequately detail the specifics required for valid substituted service according to Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates that substituted service can only be employed after reasonable attempts at personal service have been exhausted.
The RTC's Findings and Orders
Despite the issues surrounding service, the RTC declared the respondent in default due to her failure to file a responsive pleading, allowing the petitioner to present evidence ex parte. The RTC subsequently ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondent to cease interfering with corporate management and to pay moral damages and attorney's fees.
Appellate Court and Jurisdiction Issues
The respondent’s motions to set aside the Order of Default were denied, leading her to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled in her favor, nullifying the RTC's decisions on the grounds that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over her due to improper service of summons.
Legal Grounds for the Petition
The petitioner sought a review of the CA's decision, arguing that there was a valid service of summons and that the CA erred in vacating the RTC's orders. The main contention revolved around whether the RTC had acquired jurisdiction over the respondent, hinging on the validity of the service of summons and the assertion of due process.
Requirements for Valid Service of Summons
The Court elucidated the requirements for valid substituted service, which includes demonstrating impossibility of prompt personal service, detailing the efforts made in the return of summons, using a person of suitable age and discretion for delivery, and ensuring that the process server has made several attempts on different occasions. Each of these requirements was not sufficiently met in this case.
Petitioner’s Arguments of Regularity
The petitioner contended the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties regarding the service of summons. However, the Court noted that such a pres
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171916)
Case Overview
- This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, aimed at annulling the Decision dated June 29, 2005, and the Resolution dated March 14, 2006, issued by the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The CA Decision nullified the earlier Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Malolos, Bulacan.
Background of the Case
- The petitioner filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with a Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction with Damages against the respondent.
- Initial attempts to serve summons to the respondent were unsuccessful. The process server made multiple attempts to deliver the summons, which were documented in several Returns of Service.
Details of Service Attempts
- The first attempt on May 20, 2002, resulted in the process server finding the respondent absent, with only her maid refusing to accept the summons.
- A second attempt on May 21, 2002, also failed as the respondent was not present, leading to the summons being returned as "NOT SERVED."
- An alias summons was issued, with another attempt on May 29, 2002, where again personal service was not achieved.
- A subsequent attempt on August 14, 2002, involved leaving the summons with the maid, who was deemed of "age of reason" but refused to sign.
Court Proceedings
- Following the unsuccessful service of summons, the petitioner filed a Motion to Declare the Defendant in Default due to the respondent's failure to respond.
- The RTC declared the respondent in default i